The issue is not on the formal agenda but may well be brought up when Premier League chief executives meet in London on Thursday for their monthly forum.

Typical! Boro are in the danger zone and should the worst happen then the relegation cash cushion will be needed to rebuild ready for a renewed promotion push and any cuts to the payments will hurt. If they go ahead and are not just about internal politics of course.

So what is all about? What are the parachute payments for? How much are they worth? What cuts are being proposed? And why?

What are parachute payments?

The Premier League were forced to act as a string of clubs fell through the gap between the top flight and Championship revenues and ended in deep financial trouble after relegation.

Having spent heavily on transfers and wages to compete in the top flight, relegation spelt disaster for the likes of Bradford, Southampton, Crystal Palace, Leeds, Norwich and Charlton, all who went into administration after relegation.

Others - like Boro and Fulham - have survived but only after slashing costs and restructuring the club to cope with the massive reduction of income while supporting a top flight wage bill. It is not always easy to sell players on big contracts.

Read More

Against that background the Premier League introduced payments to cushion the blow.

First introduced in 2005, the payments have two aims. Firstly to let relegated clubs manage the tricky transition to the Championship, mainly paying the wage bill in the first season while they either geared up for a swift return or looked to sell players and run contracts down.

The second aim was to ensure the league stayed competitive by encouraging newly promoted sides to feel they could strengthen their squad without risking financial ruin.

How much are they worth?

The value of the parachute payment has increased dramatically in line with the huge Premier League broadcast deals.

Initially they were worth £24m over three years but the system has been tinkered with several times.

When Boro were relegated in 2009 they got a cash windfall as the figures were increased partway through.

Read More

In the first season they got £12.25m and that was supposed to drop but a lucrative new deal meant they actually received £16m in the second year then two more payments of £8m.

Last season the figures were £24m, £19.3 and two payments of £9.6m making a total of £62.5m

Massive new domestic and overseas Premier League broadcast deals kicked in from the start of this season and the scheduled parachute payments are now worth a minimum £85m.

A new formula has been worked out based on a percentage of the £93m minimum payment that the side who finishes 20th receives.

The formula will give relegated teams 55%, 45% and then 20% of that over the next three years - although teams who only spend one season in the league don’t get that final slice.

That means if Boro get relegated in May they are entitled to a payments of £47m and then £38m.

What cuts are being proposed? And Why?

There are no formal mooted moves on the table at all as yet, just suggestions of a possible review drip fed into the press.

The suggestion is that the big clubs have noble motivations and want to preserve the competitive balance and integrity of the league, although it would be easy to be sceptical of that.

The idea is being floated that the big clubs are concerned at the damage done to the brand when unscrupulous owners ‘pocket’ the Premier League parachute payments after relegation leaving clubs struggling with debts and wage bills on vastly reduced incomes.

The case of Blackpool is mentioned. In 2010-11 Ian Holloway’s side, surprise play-off winners, operated with a strict wage ceiling and spent just £3.5m then on relegation the owners, the Oyston family, took a massive £12m dividend from the parachute payments and continued to run the club on a tight budget. They have been relegated twice since.

Read More

So the big clubs appear to be trying to frame a discussion about parachute payments around those cases with hints that future payments could be reduced, or made harder to trigger, or ring-fenced for wage bills.

Is there a sub-text?

However, there are other suggestions floating around in the press too that the big clubs - the bums-on-seats global attraction - are getting itchy about the overseas TV rights deal and would like a review of how that £3bn is shared out.

The giant clubs have global fanbases and are undoubtedly the big draw on the small screen and several have made noises about how the current collective model is ‘unfair.’

It would be easy to read the media reports as stick and carrot political pressure from the elite: relax the way the cash is shared at the top or the noose could tighten at the bottom.

It wouldn’t be the first time the powerful group of big brands have combined to reshape the way money is distributed.

Most of the clubs in the bottom half have been looking over their shoulders at one point this term and are well aware they could be vulnerable if they have one bad season.

They know they may need those parachute payments at some point so you can see how they may bend to such pressure.